Quote:
Originally Posted by Gat-Train
|
"Council members who voted for the declaration, including the mayor, say it's no empty gesture. Wednesday's vote dedicates $250,000 from the city's annual Hydro Ottawa dividend to speed up studies aimed at moving the city to renewable energy and meeting greenhouse gas emission targets."
There is a lot to unpack in this thread but this quote is really peak Ottawa. It's not an empty gesture because we are doing a study.
Yes being Ottawa I am sure lots of us have worked on Climate Change to some extent including myself though I am by no means an expert.
I don't know how you can conclude anything but that the science is settled that humans are causing the climate to warm. There aren't really two sides to the debate. However, we do not know all the ramifications of that so we can not pinpoint flooding or other disasters directly to climate change.
We also don't know the economic and social impacts on Canada. It is easy to argue that in fact they would be a net positive. I have not seen a comprehensive Canadian study but a very large US study showed positive economic impact for almost all the border counties and states so extrapolating from that it could very well be positive.
That said it will almost be certainly disastrous for the world so morally Canada should do its part. The question is what is that. Keeping in mind any changes we make will have close to zero impact given our contribution to emissions and can only be seen as a role model or solidarity. Meanwhile China and India are allowed to continue to increase emissions and the US is not participating. An analogy we are Arnprior and are slightly impacted by sewage in the Ottawa river. The city of Ottawa refuses to do anything as does Hawkesbury and points further down river. How much should we spend to stop polluting the river?
The Canadian government is saying lets pay a very small amount that will have a small impact. I think the logic of you have to start somewhere is sound. Surveys show though most people are against even this small amount. Everyone agrees someone else should pay to mitigate the problem which is why BC and Quebec like to point the finger at Alberta when they live in huge houses in sprawling suburbs. Really we need $200 a ton and really at a world level in order to actually reduce emissions. There was an opinion survey and even among Americans who believe in climate change most were unwilling to pay $10 a month to solve the problem. This is the level of disconnect we have.
So the city declaring an "emergency" seems like empty hyperbole to me. But sure let's charge all cars a $20 congestion charge to enter the core and use the money to speed up LRT and buy electric buses. But I think we know there would be a voters revolt even among the moms who march for climate change and drive Subarus with save the planet bumper stickers.
Threaded Mode